| ▲ | cm2187 2 hours ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The irony is that most of those who downvote didn't spend hours in front of those screens as I did. And I do remember these things were tiring, particularly in the dark. And the worst of all were computer CRT screens, that weren't interlaced (in the mid 90s, before higher refresh frequency started showing up). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | adrianmonk an hour ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
I spent literally thousands of hours staring at those screens. You have it backwards. Interlacing was worse in terms of refresh, not better. Interlacing is a trick that lets you sacrifice refresh rates to gain greater vertical resolution. The electron beam scans across the screen the same number of times per second either way. With interlacing, it alternates between even and odd rows. With NTSC, the beam scans across the screen 60 times per second. With NTSC non-interlaced, every pixel will be refreshed 60 times per second. With NTSC interlaced, every pixel will be refreshed 30 times per second since it only gets hit every other time. And of course the phosphors on the screen glow for a while after the electron beam hits them. It's the same phosphor, so in interlaced mode, because it's getting hit half as often, it will have more time to fade before it's hit again. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||